Opinion Commentary & Media VIII

[DuckYeah]

Cool story bro

just show a little respect mate.

 

[The Brady Bunch]

Once again, if you want to hold a guy who wrote things and had certain views way back in the 1840's to today's societal standards, I think that's very unfair.

Well it's an interesting point but if we held this bloke to standards in his own day, how does he stack up? Back then, drunks would be locked away in "lunatic asylums" alongside people with intellectual disabilities. He spoke about the sobriety and morals of Indigenous people, but he would have been considered an extreme deviant alcoholic in his time. These days, we have empathy for his foibles but we don't forgive him for being a racist campaigner.

 

[DuckYeah]

Yeh, we probably shouldn’t name new things in old peoples names.. that point resonates. We could have named Arden station - Pagans Station

 

[ferball]

Yeh, we probably shouldn’t name new things in old peoples names.. that point resonates. We could have named Arden station - Pagans Station

Aylett Station.

 

[gokangas]

Aylett Station.

He was a dentist - can't name a street after a torturer.

 

[ferball]

He was a dentist - can't name a street after a torturer.

What about a train station?

 

[gokangas]

What about a train station?

Refer above.

 

[desie]

I still prefer the Garden Station idea.

I used to love The Goodies as a kid, it’s the least we can do.

 

[ferball]

I still prefer the Garden Station idea.

I used to love The Goodies as a kid, it’s the least we can do.

That's a billoddie great idea.

 

[koshari]

He was a massive piss head who ****ed up everything he tried to do. If only AA was a thing back then. All that racist bullshit was par for the course, then and now. (Seems there's a few on this thread would like to be able to say similar stuff but they're basically too gutless.)

Its no wonder politicians don't want to name a major new train station and urban development after him.

Names are simply names, virtualy no one from this age would know the origin of arden st but many would know its a street in north melbourne. Just as people associate lygon with carlton, punt rd with richmond , easy st with collingwood and so on. Heaps of london underground stations are named after the streets they are below. No one there does a deep analysis of who the street was named after so they can be sure not to be outraged. Closest was waterloo, i heard the french wanted it changed, the poms told em to ggf.

 

[ferball]

Names are simply names, virtualy no one from this age would know the origin of arden st but many would know its a street in north melbourne. Just as people associate lygon with carlton, punt rd with richmond , easy st with collingwood and so on. Heaps of london underground stations are named after the streets they are below. No one there does a deep analysis of who the street was named after so they can be sure not to be outraged. Closest was waterloo, i heard the french wanted it changed, the poms told em to ggf.

We're not talking about changing any names tho. This is a name for a new thing.

IIRC it wasn't even called Arden St Station. Just Arden Station.

It was bound to happen I guess.

 

[Rooboys Rool]

I keep reading on Facebook that the referendum was all about Uncle Colin and the Welcome to Country ceremonies.

It's quite possible that with modern misinformation techniques, the 1967 referendum to acknowledge indigenous people and count them within the population as human beings rather than fauna could have been defeated. Many people would have been conned (or would have conned themselves) into believing that they were voting to give their homes to indigenous people.

Indigenous people were never considered fauna.

Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians once classified under a flora and fauna act?

A regularly repeated claim is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, until the 1967 referendum. It's not true. RMIT ABC Fact Check explains.

www.abc.net.au

 

[DarkPhoenix]

But what would our vegetarian and vegan supporters think?

I'm sure they'll tell us.

(relax Vegan supporters, it's a joke).

 

[MagicDaw]

T

Thanks. I'm in Tassie now. Was at the Mannalargenna celebration on the weekend. Great day. I was at a pretty ****ed up car accident recently that left me in a bit of hole but I'm climbing out of it now.

I hope things are good for you.

Hope you are well Ferbs
We are all here for you if you need a chat!

 

[shintemaster]

We're not talking about changing any names tho. This is a name for a new thing.

IIRC it wasn't even called Arden St Station. Just Arden Station.

It was bound to happen I guess.

That's the irony of nuance - arguably Arden St Station is less problematic.

 

[Black Diamond]

I'm sure they'll tell us.

(relax Vegan supporters, it's a joke).

Will they? They aren't cross fitters.

 

[ferball]

Indigenous people were never considered fauna.

Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians once classified under a flora and fauna act?

A regularly repeated claim is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, until the 1967 referendum. It's not true. RMIT ABC Fact Check explains.

www.abc.net.au

Some indigenous people would say the referendum was a bad thing. But it did lead to the Land Rights Acts of the 70s which were the best thing in terms of indigenous rights from the POV of the people who got land rights. So if you were in the NT it was good but if you were in Tasmania or Victoria not so useful.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Thanks. I'm in Tassie now. Was at the Mannalargenna celebration on the weekend. Great day. I was at a pretty ****ed up car accident recently that left me in a bit of hole but I'm climbing out of it now.

I hope things are good for you.

Would be an amazing day brother. Wish I had of been there. Sorry to hear you got banged up badly bro. Keep fighting good man. Here if you need it.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Indigenous people were never considered fauna.

Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians once classified under a flora and fauna act?

A regularly repeated claim is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, until the 1967 referendum. It's not true. RMIT ABC Fact Check explains.

www.abc.net.au

Maybe not, but they were seen as lower in the chain than fauna, treated worse than any animal.

 

[The Talent Scout]

He was a dentist - can't name a street after a torturer.

Oh gokangas, you drilled us with that one!

 

[gokangas]

Oh gokangas, you drilled us with that one!

I was just filling time.

 

[Gasometer]

The thing I found funny about the article summary was “should we remember this bloke”

Geez, it’s hard to remember someone you’ve never heard of.

I would have been oblivious to his existence and racial comments if to weren’t for the article. I’m certain 95% of people reading the article would be the same.

When you spend some time delving into the Port Phillip District and Melbourne through the 1800’s the era is a head shake.

I keep reading on Facebook that the referendum was all about Uncle Colin and the Welcome to Country ceremonies.

It's quite possible that with modern misinformation techniques, the 1967 referendum to acknowledge indigenous people and count them within the population as human beings rather than fauna could have been defeated. Many people would have been conned (or would have conned themselves) into believing that they were voting to give their homes to indigenous people.

In short the 1967 Referendum was about changing the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to take over from abysmal failures of State and Territory governments over 150 years.

Here’s the details and why a misinformation campaign would not have got up.

It had bilateral support.

Oct 2023 did not.

 

[Samsquanch]

That's a billoddie great idea.

Ferb's goes full ecky-thump!

 

[The Brady Bunch]

Indigenous people were never considered fauna.

Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians once classified under a flora and fauna act?

A regularly repeated claim is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, until the 1967 referendum. It's not true. RMIT ABC Fact Check explains.

www.abc.net.au

They were not counted as people within the population is the pertinent point.

 

[The Brady Bunch]

In short the 1967 Referendum was about changing the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to take over from abysmal failures of State and Territory governments over 150 years.

Here’s the details and why a misinformation campaign would not have got up.

It had bilateral support.

Oct 2023 did not.

View attachment 2187262

Well, yes that was Albo's folly right there. As soon as Dutton withdrew support, he should not have pushed ahead.

My hypothetical about 1967 would have to assume that the referendum was proposed by the government and opposed by the opposition party. As you say, that didn't happen.

Having said all that, I do think it's feasible that in the modern era, with social media influence being as it is, both major parties could support a constitutional change and it could still be defeated. All it would take is a populist snake oil salesman with deep pockets and a willingness to play to the fears and base instincts of the voters.